If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hybrid View

Facebook - New York Man Sues Mark Zuckerberg for 50% of Facebook

A New York man suing Mark Zuckerberg for 50% of Facebook has added five attorneys to his legal team. He says a contract he signed with the then-Harvard University freshman Mark Zuckerberg in 2003 which gives him 50% ownership of facebook.

I still cannot see how FaceBook is worth billions, except when sold to suckers. I occasionally use it, but don't really like it.

On one side of the discussion it does become obvious that when you are successful, you strap a target on your back for the lawyers to use for practice.

On the other hand, Zuckerberg has not been the most honest player on the Internet. He has repeatedly been caught selling personal info about members. I could see him screwing the people who have made claims against him.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

On one side of the discussion it does become obvious that when you are successful, you strap a target on your back for the lawyers to use for practice.

On the other hand, Zuckerberg has not been the most honest player on the Internet. He has repeatedly been caught selling personal info about members. I could see him screwing the people who have made claims against him.

It's possible that Zuckerberg made some kind of deal before he knew what he had. It's suprising that Zuckerberg didn't go to his father and extended family for start-up money. I beleive that he sold a nice chunk of the company to a venture capitalist in 2004 for as little as $100,000. They all could have been rich.

Winklevoss twins and Co-Founder Eduardo Saverin are a couple of the big lawsuits.

With this kind of internet company, you can't divide up the company like 50% for you. The venture capitalists need a big cut of the pie.

FB does make money from advertisers.
Lots of it.
Plus all those members?
And all those members playing all those games?
Why Zynga is moving more and more away from facebook.
They were giving up too much from advertising and people who bought coins, animals etc. to FB.

Anyways, like all companies and websites,. one day it will be irrelevant and/or history.

I don't believe that Zuckerberg's family was that wealthy. But, they could have come up with the 500k that Peter Thiel gave for 10.2% of Facebook. I read somewhere that he was thinking about asking his family for the money , and was relieved when they were able to find a venture capitalist to give them the funds.

Originally Posted by TopDogger

"Choose your business partners wisely."

In the Bloomberg article it says that Zuckerberg sold 50% of Facebook for $1000 and the right to adapt the source code from StreetFax. Zuckerberg was paid $1000 for StreetFax in a work-for-hire contract and was orginally hired from a Craiglist ad to develop source code.

I don't beleive that it will matter though. Yahoo made a lot if money off Google and later got more from the Overture settlement. Yahoo spent $235 million on the Inktomi search engine in 2002 when they could have bought 50% of Facebook for $1,000. How smart was that?

I don't believe that Zuckerberg's family was that wealthy. But, they could have come up with the 500k that Peter Thiel gave for 10.2% of Facebook. I read somewhere that he was thinking about asking his family for the money , and was relieved when they were able to find a venture capitalist to give them the funds.

It depends upon how you define "wealthy." I have not heard of very many non-wealthy people who could afford Harvard tuition.

My biological father must have taught me wrong I know I am doing it wrong for I have used my own money on almost all of the sites I have started. According to him all business ventures should be started with OPM (others peoples money) or OPC (other peoples credit) so with that in mind when Zuckerberg started facebook with others money and time my father would of said it was done correctly.

My biological father must have taught me wrong I know I am doing it wrong for I have used my own money on almost all of the sites I have started. According to him all business ventures should be started with OPM (others peoples money) or OPC (other peoples credit) so with that in mind when Zuckerberg started facebook with others money and time my father would of said it was done correctly.

There are two ways to finance a business. You can do it yourself or you can use OPM.

The use of OPM is what got Zuckerberg into his legal predicaments. That method is typically used by people who are extremely risk adverse and want to "test" an idea without putting their own money at risk. Venture capitalist money can also be used when you have no other way to finance a business startup. But if an entrepreneur feels strongly about the prospects for success and they achieved it, he or she will get a much better return if they use their own money.

For 20 years I worked for a guy who was extremely successful and never borrowed money, even though he started out with almost nothing. He built a $300 million business and owned all of the company's buildings (worldwide) without any loans or mortgages. He never took money out of the business, but always used it to build the business. My dad viewed things the same way. He never bought anything until he had the cash to buy it. The only regret from the guy that I worked for was that he started the business with a silent partner and they each put money into the business for startup costs. That partner was a thorn in his side all the way up until the business was sold. The partner reaped all of the benefits without contributing anything useful as the business grew.

When you use OPM, you reduce your personal monetary risks, but raise your costs (you eventually have to pay someone back, with interest) and you increase your legal risks (which Zuckerberg is discovering). Bringing investors into the picture complicates your decision making, because at some point investors want their money back, which may not be at a time when you are ready to pay it back.

Today it is very difficult to use OPM to start a business unless you can guarantee an investor a very high rate of return or you use your personal assets as collateral. Investors are also risk adverse.

From my perspective, I see a certain "weasel factor" involved with people who have the ability to finance a venture, but want someone else to take all of the risk while they reap the rewards. On average about once per month I get approached by someone who has an idea for a web site who wants to "partner" with me. The way the plans typically work is that as my part of the investment I get to do all of the work and provide all of the talent, while the other guy allows me to share in the profits that he makes. It is pretty much the same as someone who doesn't want to put their own money at risk. They want someone else to take all of the risk. I have turned down every partnership offer and I have never seen any of the projects succeed after I have turned them down.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin